States Storing And Selling Your DNA At Birth Without Explicit Notice Consent (TBA: Hospitals Doctors Testlabs Too)
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/11/09/dna-data-from-california-newborn... http://slashdot.org/~DavidPoole (KPIX 5) — This might come as a surprise to California natives in their 20s and early 30s: The state owns your DNA. Every year about four million newborns in the U.S. get a heel prick at birth, Danielle Gatto ... was shocked to find, her daughters’ leftover blood was not thrown away. “The state collects the cards and then uses them in a database,” she said. Turns out a non-descript office building in Richmond contains the DNA of every person born in California since 1983. Law enforcement can request them. Private companies can buy them to do research – without your consent. “Everybody has a right to make an informed decision. That is not for the state to decide for them,” said Gatto. The CDPH turned down a request for an interview and wouldn’t explain why it doesn’t ask permission to sell babies’ blood spots. Yaniv Erlich with Columbia University and the New York Genome Center ... demonstrated how easy it is to take anonymized DNA, cross-reference it with online data and connect it to a name. “You need to have some training in genetics, but once you have that kind of training the attack is not very complicated to conduct,” But Gatto thinks the state should have to at least ask her consent before storing and selling her daughters’ DNA. “We are at the beginning of a frontier of so much genetic research, there is no knowing at this point in time what that info could be used for,” said Gatto. ‘The worst thing as a parent is to think that a decision that you are making today may negatively affect your children down the road.” Gatto's husband – state Assemblyman Mike Gatto – introduced a bill this year that would have required signed consent... Opposition from the state and the industry killed it.
grarpamp writes: | > (TBA: Hospitals Doctors Testlabs Too) | | Don't forget the Red Cross and Military | among other places that vamp you and | do who knows what with it. Soon to be unnecessary/declasse; see layman's version at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11883473/People-emit-a-germ-cloud-of-... or technical version at https://peerj.com/articles/1258/ --dan
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 03:18:34AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/11/09/dna-data-from-california-newborn... http://slashdot.org/~DavidPoole
Besides blood, can (parts of) DNA be recovered from other stuff say hair, urine?
On November 12, 2015 5:33:27 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
Besides blood, can (parts of) DNA be recovered from other stuff say hair, urine?
Short answer: yes. http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/challenges-dna-testing-and-foren... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792701/ The ease and speed of extracting DNA from a hair sample depends on which part of the strand you have. But, yeah. -Shelley
Besides blood, can (parts of) DNA be recovered from other stuff say hair, urine?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-ear-made-with-van-gogh-dna-1= 80957230/?no-ist Vincent van Gogh's ear is nearly as famous as his jaw-dropping Starry Night. Though its final resting place may never be found -- as the legend goes, he severed off part of his ear and then gave it to a prostitute, museumgoers in New York can get a look at the next best thing. ArtNet's Sarah Cascone reports that a living replica of van Gogh's ear, created using the artist's DNA, is now on display at Ronald Feldman Fine Arts in New York City. The ear is the gruesome brainchild of Diemut Strebe, a conceptual artist who partnered with scientists from MIT and other universities to create a copy of van Gogh's ear. Using DNA extracted from a stamp licked by the artist, as well as cell samples collected from van Gogh's great-great-grandnephew, Strebe and team created "Sugababe," an artificially grown ear suspended in a clear gel. Visitors don't have to merely look at the ear'they can talk into it, too. On her website, Strebe writes that "the input sound is connected to a computer processor, using a software program to generate simulated nerve impulses from the sound signal in real time. They mimic sounds recorded from an electrode inserted into the auditory nerve, when firing." Noam Chomsky was the first person to speak into the ear after it debuted in Germany last year. In a 2014 story about the bizarre art project, Cascone writes that the ear is "just one of a limited edition." Neither van Gogh's relatives nor the Dutch museum that bears his name want copies of their own. If "Sugababe" is a slightly macabre commentary on fame and art, it's also a tribute to a world-famous artistic body part. It's not certain what actually happened to van Gogh's ear: though he supposedly gave it to a prostitute during a mental breakdown, recent scholarship suggests that it was actually cut off by Paul Gauguin during an argument between the two artists. Perhaps van Gogh could have benefitted from 21st-century ear replication technology. Still, there's no telling what the painter'who once proclaimed that the idea of exhibiting his work left him "absolutely cold" would make of artwork inspired by one of his darkest moments.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:20:04AM -0500, dan@geer.org wrote:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-ear-made-with-van-gogh-dna-1= 80957230/?no-ist .... Using DNA extracted from a stamp licked by the artist, as well as cell samples collected from van Gogh's great-great-grandnephew, Strebe and team created "Sugababe," an artificially grown ear suspended in a clear gel.
Definitely don't believe usable human DNA on a stamp can survive over 120 years unless very carefully preserved since the beginning. great-great-grandnephew is entirely different stuff.
On November 14, 2015 8:43:49 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:20:04AM -0500, dan@geer.org wrote:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-ear-made-with-van-gogh-dna-1= 80957230/?no-ist .... Using DNA extracted from a stamp licked by the artist, as well as cell samples collected from van Gogh's great-great-grandnephew, Strebe and team created "Sugababe," an artificially grown ear suspended in a clear gel.
Definitely don't believe usable human DNA on a stamp can survive over 120 years unless very carefully preserved since the beginning.
Every time I see someone lick an envelope, I tease them for contributing to the global DNA database. Maybe the joke isn't that funny anymore. -S
On November 14, 2015 8:43:49 AM Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
.... Using DNA extracted from a stamp licked by the artist
Definitely don't believe usable human DNA on a stamp can survive over 120 years unless very carefully preserved since the beginning
Sorry, I hit the enter key by mistake. Wanted to add: when collecting oral fluids for HIV tests, we use a buccal swab which needs to be in contact with the oral mucosa for a few seconds in order to absorb a sample good enough to perform an accurate ELISA. So I too doubt the viability/usability of a saliva sample on an old stamp. Still, I will continue to use a sponge to seal my envelopes...that glue tastes nasty ;) -S
participants (4)
-
dan＠geer.org -
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
Shelley